Rules Mechanics that should be jettisoned

So what rules mechanics would you simply remove if 3e was your property and could do that. Here is my short list and feel free to add to or quibble over my choices.

1. Roll a '1' on a save and start referencing that silly chart and calculate hardness for items and does fire do 1/2 damage or 1/4 damage and what hardness bonus does a +2 item get again.

2. PrCs - nope don't like 'em. Balanced and well thought out Kits would have been far better...

3. Ranger and Paladin separate spell lists. I'd throw them out and make them cast as a druid or cleric.

I totally agree with #3. Indy spell columns do NOT work.

About #2, PrCs aren't always broken- it's just such an expectation. 4E may do a better job in that you enter a Paragon and an Epic Path and get additional stuff on top of your base class. I just down think that all of the possible flavours of characters, both thematically and mechanically, can be represented by base classes alone so in that way PrCs do fill a needed niche.

#1... we don't even bother with that stuff. So I guess your right; it's crap.

Removing bad rules is just as important as creating or retooling good ones. I think 3.x is a great example of how trying to represent reality or realistic principles can end up with some wacky, unweilding, or basically unneeded rules.

Don't forget that just because a rule exists, it doesn't mean you have to use it. I've never seen anyone use that chart for magic items. PrCs are a great idea, but everyone jumped on the bandwagon and created a whole pile of crap with no thoughts to game balance (or deliberately twinked-out classes that would make their PCs uber-powerful).

I disagree with the paladin/ranger thing: rangers are not druids, and paladins are not clerics. Paladins' spells focus more toward smiting enemies and empowering their weapons, with some healing tossed in, while clerics focus on a broader spectrum - some divine wrath, some buffing, some healing.

Likewise, rangers are focused on scouting, tracking, and killing. Druids are more about protecting the wilderness and dealing with those who defile it.

The problem (for both of these) is that the spell lists do a poor job of properly differentiating those roles. Give paladins more martial spells, give rangers more archery spells (and keep them both off the cleric/druid lists), and you're set.

In the core rules, there are only a couple of spells on the paladin list that are different than what you would get on the cleric list. The ranger has no unique spells. Those few paladin spells (Bless Weapon, Heal Mount, Holy Sword) could simply be added to the cleric list or made into paladin class features.

A thing to remember would be the few spells like Discern Lies, Dispel Evil, and Greater Magic Weapon, among others, which currently appear at different levels on the Clr/Pal or Drd/Rgr lists.
For instance, Dispel Evil is a Clr 5, Pal 4 spell.

Also, a spell like Holy Sword seems to have been designed with the caster being high-level in mind; as it gives a powerful +5 holy sword (with extras).
A paladin can't access this until level 14. Putting it on the Cleric spell lists gives it to clerics at level 7.
Though, as you said, it would be possible to turn this into a paladin class feature.

Should "backwards compatibility" come into this? Getting rid of the Pal/Rgr lists is all well and good with the PH, but extra sources (such as the Spell Compendium) may present spells unique to the paladin and ranger.

Another way you could do it is to make a Paladin domain in which all paladins have access to it make sure that they have those unique spells on it. Then give them access to the cleric list and their domain. You could even throw one of their class features on it as the domain ability.

This does not exactly simply delete you are also forced to do something else to compensate for that deletion. Compatibility is an issue with some of the later spells.

This does bring me to a point though of conflict with the 3e rules. I wish every class had its own unique niche. A paladin is a fighter/cleric with a spin. Why couldn't the paladin be something more paladin like? Then if they wanted they could multi-class into the cleric and pick up some cleric spells etc. Point being there are several classes which I feel don't have enough mechanical grit to make it on there own, paladin being one of them. Some of them feel just like multi-classed characters out of the box.

I like the idea of domains (or something very similar to it). If we want to be simple and generic to Paladins and Rangers, we could just create a "Paladin" domain and a "Ranger" domain. When Rangers and Paladins hit 4th level and start to get spell casting, they get their reduced rate of progression in a full spellcaster and are forced to take their "Paladin" domain or "Ranger" domain. So, starting at 4th level and every 2 levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, ...) the class gets +1 level of spell advancement in that full spellcaster class. So, a 9th level Ranger casts like a 3rd level Druid, a 12th level Ranger casts like a 5th lvl Druid.

If we wanted to get savvy, we could break up the Ranger and Paladin spells into more specific and thematic domains. Rangers could choose two from the list like: Archery, Two Weapons, Stealth, Awareness, Animal, Foe Sworn. Paladins could pick from domains like: Divine Retribution, Divine Protection, Justice, Equestrian, Healing, Commander.

I know some people may not like the "cookie cutter" feel of calling a Ranger a Rogue/Druid or calling a Paladin a Fighter/Cleric, but it is a useful comparison. I have some ideas here about spellcasting "power sources" and having either spontaneous or prepared versions http://www.enworld.org/forum/societ...us-prepared-casters-all-casting-flavours.html It displays and better lets us moderate progression in those similar ways. It helps us communicate in the same way for different classes so that there are meaningful, measurable growth rates. We don't want to fall under the illusion that every class is super different and totally unique and think we need to reinvent the wheel with each new class, core/base or Prestige (or Epic). That's actually one of the better qualities of 4th Ed I feel.

By extension, if we like the "Multiple Domains" idea for Rangers and Paladins, we could do the same thing for other core or prestige classes. What other classes would we need to create a list of domains for? I've also noted a "C" for Core class and a "P" for prestige class.
- Paladin, C
- Ranger, C
- Assassin, P
- Blackguard, P
- Warmage, C
- Beguiler, C
- Peaceful Devotee (is that the name?), P

Some non-unique indy spell columns, like:
- Harper Scout, P
- older Bladesinger, P
- Devoted Champion (?), P
- Templar/ Pious Templar (?), P

... and Bard. He'll need some work.

This is actually another topic, but I think that spell advancement should be scaled back along with the number of attacks (iterative attacks, TWF & Flurry). If we change the rate of spell advancement, it does change things like this. If, say, full spellcasters got a new level of spells every 3 class levels (rather than 2), then converting other classes to 1/2 or some fractional rate of spell advancement is much more playable. I can't find the thread with the table, so I'll just make the table again.
SPELLCASTER LVL____SPELL LEVEL
1.........................................0
1.........................................1
4.........................................2
7.........................................3
10.......................................4
13.......................................5
16.......................................6
19.......................................7
22.......................................8
25.......................................9
x.........................................(X+2)/3

Using this spell advancement, Rangers and Paladins would still hit 1st level spells at 4th class level. However, the rest would be quite slowed down. So having any "reduced level" spells are much less of a concern power-wise.
RANGER/PALADIN LEVEL______SPELL LEVEL____LEVELS SPELL ADV
4..........................................1.........................1
10........................................2.........................4
16........................................3.........................7
22........................................4.........................10
28........................................5.........................13

Sadrik said:

Another way you could do it is to make a Paladin domain in which all paladins have access to it make sure that they have those unique spells on it.

Click to expand...

Or you could simply make new spells for paladins only.

This does bring me to a point though of conflict with the 3e rules. I wish every class had its own unique niche. A paladin is a fighter/cleric with a spin. Why couldn't the paladin be something more paladin like?

Click to expand...

Like... a knight?

Aramar the Black said:

A thing to remember would be the few spells like Discern Lies, Dispel Evil, and Greater Magic Weapon, among others, which currently appear at different levels on the Clr/Pal or Drd/Rgr lists.
For instance, Dispel Evil is a Clr 5, Pal 4 spell.

Click to expand...

That's because paladins don't have L5 spells, but it fits them well.

Also, a spell like Holy Sword seems to have been designed with the caster being high-level in mind; as it gives a powerful +5 holy sword (with extras).
A paladin can't access this until level 14. Putting it on the Cleric spell lists gives it to clerics at level 7.

Click to expand...

The paladin's caster level is half his class level.

Should "backwards compatibility" come into this? Getting rid of the Pal/Rgr lists is all well and good with the PH, but extra sources (such as the Spell Compendium) may present spells unique to the paladin and ranger.

Click to expand...

There aren't a whole lot of paladin/ranger spells, but there are some.

Bladesinger_Boy said:

I know some people may not like the "cookie cutter" feel of calling a Ranger a Rogue/Druid or calling a Paladin a Fighter/Cleric, but it is a useful comparison. ... We don't want to fall under the illusion that every class is super different and totally unique and think we need to reinvent the wheel with each new class, core/base or Prestige (or Epic).

Click to expand...

I agree in part, and partly with Sadrik. Each class should be unique enough to stand on its own and bring something of its own to the table. As it stands, paladins are a cleric/fighter multiclass; rangers are slightly better, as they combine elements of the fighter, rogue, and druid. The easiest way to fix this problem is to give them both unique class features that help define their roles more clearly. A paladin, for example, is a champion of his god, a holy knight who smites the enemies of the church. The ranger is a wilderness scout who's got advanced training in stealth, archery, and hunting.

The problem with 3.x is that very few base classes actually have any class features, making them very bland and non-specific (I think the designers realized this, as we saw new, more focused base classes in every splatbook, most of which could have been relegated to the status of PrCs).

If, say, full spellcasters got a new level of spells every 3 class levels (rather than 2), then converting other classes to 1/2 or some fractional rate of spell advancement is much more playable. I can't find the thread with the table, so I'll just make the table again.

Click to expand...

That would go a long way toward nerfing spellcasters' power, but I'm not sure that's not overdoing it. For most spellcasters, spells are all they get - if you reduce those to 1/3 levels and effectively put the highest-level stuff out of reach (most groups never play past L15), who would want to play a spellcaster? It'd be great for a low-magic world, but not a D&D standard world.

POWER BALANCING SPELLCASTING & ATTACKS
If we want spellcasting to be balanced at low, mid, and high level, we need to give it some at-will abilities for low level, and find a better way to moderate power somewhat at mid level and especially at high level.
If we do reduce the rate of spell advancement, we also need to reduce the number of attacks- which is great for boosting speed of play and finding more interesting tactics other only full round attacking opponents. Check out this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/society-3-5-revisionists/271686-how-can-we-balance-level-1-40-a.html about ideas to make the game playable at higher. One is having one attack per tier (1st, 11th, 21st, even 31st) and having any extra attacks from things like TWF, Flurry of Blows, Haste, or other stuff integrated into the same attack roll.

SPELL PROGRESSION EQUITY
One thing I think does not make sense is why spontaneous spellcasters, like Sorcs, get their spells later that the rate at which Wizards, Druids, and Clerics. This is a chance to set both at the same rate. The difference between spontaneous and prepared spellcasters should be choosing between a fewer known spells with high mana/amount of spellcasting OR between excellent variety of known spells but with more limited mana/amount of spellcasting.

FULL SPONTANEOUS, FULL PREPARED, OR HALF CASTER
For each source of magic, there should be 3 core class spellcasters: the full progression spontaneous spellcaster, the full progression prepared spellcaster, and the half progression spellcaster. Just to note, the half progression spellcaster also has to pick between being a spontaneous or prepared spellcaster; for a half-caster, the differences are not great enough to create two different half-progression classes with each being forced to take spontaneous or prepared spellcasting. If later reviewing the fully array of core classes demands saying "Bards should be 1/2 spontaneous arcane and Duskblades are 1/2 prepared arcane", that's fine.

SOURCE___FULL PREPARED___FULL SPONTANEOUS___HALF CASTER
Arcane.......Wizard.................Sorcerer.....................Bard, Duskblade, Beguiler (?)
Divine........Cleric...................Favored Soul...............Paladin
Nature.......Druid....................Spirit Shaman..............Ranger
Psionic.......Psion...................Wilder.......................Psychic Warrior, Soulknife

Kerrick said:

That's because paladins don't have L5 spells, but it fits them well.

Click to expand...

Yeah. So they'd lose access to this spell if it remained at cleric level 5 and the Paladin spell list was removed (and if they only chose spells from the cleric list, as was proposed).

Kerrick said:

The paladin's caster level is half his class level.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Holy Sword spell grants a +5 holy weapon with a magic circle against evil effect regardless of caster level.